Investigating Legume Allergy in the UK

This tender for a UK-focused legume allergy study presents a clear project description but suffers from significant deficiencies in legal compliance, clarity, and fairness due to the absence of evaluation criteria, a missing reveal date, and lack of e-submission.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code appropriately, and there are no reported disputes. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria and the missing tender reveal date are significant legal compliance issues, as they hinder transparency and the ability to assess the reasonableness of the preparation period.

The project description and technical capability requirements are clearly articulated and easy to understand. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria makes it impossible for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed, severely impacting the overall clarity of the tender process. Explicit mandatory exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements are also not detailed in the provided summary.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location (NUTS code) are provided. Four documents are also attached. However, the tender is incomplete due to the critical omission of evaluation criteria and the lack of explicit details regarding mandatory exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements in the provided information.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the technical requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. However, the absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises the transparency and objectivity of the process, making it difficult for bidders to compete fairly. The lack of e-submission also creates potential barriers to equal access, and the missing reveal date prevents a full assessment of the reasonableness of the preparation period.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the tender explicitly lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders. An explicit document URL is also not provided in the snippet.

Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Most key fields are populated. However, the "Liable Person" field is empty, and specific codes for the "Type" and "Procedure" are missing. The absence of a tender reveal date also represents a data gap.

The tender does not include any explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value considerations.